DOJ-OGR-00010380.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document657_ Filed 04/29/22 Page14of 45 sexual conduct outside of New York as relevant to Count Three because it tended to establish the existence of a conspiracy and of the Defendant and Epstein’s intent to abuse the victims in New York. In sum, the same locations—particularly Florida—were part of the Government’s case for both counts. And over time, a conspiracy’s “shifting emphasis in the location of operations do[es] not necessarily require a finding of more than one conspiracy.” Eppolito, 543 F.3d at 48 (quoting Jones, 482 F.3d at 72). This factor therefore favors the Defendant or, at least, is neutral. Common overt acts. The Government correctly notes that the overt acts provided to the jury for Counts Three and Five are distinct. See Jury Charge, Dkt. No. 565 at 49-50. This factor therefore tips toward the Government—but only slightly. A number of the overt acts listed for Count Three could have been prosecuted under Count Five but for the fact that 18 U.S.C. § 1591, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, was not enacted until 2000. See Gov. Br. at 28. That some identical overt acts were not listed for both conspiracies is therefore more a function of legal timing than an indication of two distinct conspiracies. Cf Hernandez, 2009 WL 3169226, at *12. Interdependence. Counts Three and Five are not interdependent because the success or failure of one conspiracy is independent of the success or failure of the other. See Macchia, 35 F.3d at 671. In other words, the success of the Defendant and Epstein’s scheme to abuse Carolyn from 2001 to 2004 was not made more or less likely by the prior success or failure to abuse Jane, Annie, or any other underage girl. This factor, however, makes little difference in the final analysis if “what was ultimately proven was one common conspiracy.” Maslin, 356 F.3d at 197. The Government’s theory at trial. The Second Circuit has instructed district courts to consider not only the enumerated Korfant factors but to consider the entire record. See id. at 196; United States v. Olmeda, 461 F.3d 271, 282 (2d Cir. 2006). In Maslin, the Second Circuit 14 DOJ-OGR-00010380